A New Climate-Policy Paradigm

BERLIN – Let’s be serious: the ongoing United Nations climate negotiations will probably fail. To be sure, as with the recent gathering in Bonn, expectations for the November climate conference in Warsaw are so low that there is almost no room for failure. But, with climate negotiators promising to deliver the global agreement that they could not deliver in Copenhagen in 2009, the December 2015 summit in Paris is almost certain to be another debacle.

For the European Union, the leading authority in international climate policy, the outcome of the Copenhagen summit was particularly disappointing. After years of negotiation and numerous scientific-assessment reports, delegations had the highest expectations for concluding a comprehensive climate treaty. Those expectations turned out to be illusory.

This time will not be different. While an agreement might be reached in 2015, it will probably not cover all major emitters, and it definitely will not be ambitious enough to achieve the overarching goal of international climate cooperation, which is to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Moreover, negotiators will not get another chance. After more than two decades of largely fruitless debate, during which CO2 emissions have continued to rise, another failed summit will trigger a profound crisis for international climate diplomacy, forcing its proponents either to change the rules of the game or accept that it cannot be won.

The first victim of such a crisis will be the top-down approach to climate policy pursued by the EU and many prominent scientists. This policy-making model begins with the limit for tolerable climate change; the world’s remaining emissions budget until 2050 is calculated from the agreed boundary, then divided among the 193 UN member states.

Should the Paris summit fail (and it likely will), the resulting collapse in confidence in the top-down approach could lead to one of two outcomes. In the worst-case scenario, the very concept of global climate policy would lose all value, with decades of climate alarmism giving way to fatalism. Given that the UN formally accepted the 2°C limit as the starting point for the top-down approach in 2010, the well-practiced strategy of obscuring current failures by announcing more ambitious future efforts would become unsustainable.

At that point, the EU’s role as global climate-policy leader would be weakened, as would its emphasis on building a green economy. With the EU forced to promote second- and third-rate strategies, countries would lose confidence in international climate policy’s problem-solving potential and become unwilling to pursue shared solutions.

As a result, international climate policy would become unrecognizable, ineffective, and, ultimately, irrelevant. Countries would begin to focus almost entirely on enhancing their own ability to adapt to climate change, with ambitious emissions-reduction agreements giving way to exclusively national initiatives in areas ranging from regulatory policy to geo-engineering.

This would leave the EU no choice but to change its internal plans, undermining its ability to stay on track to meet emissions-reduction aspirations for 2050 and diminishing member states’ willingness to agree to ambitious and legally binding climate and energy targets for 2030. Furthermore, the loss of legislative continuity beyond 2020 would create considerable insecurity for businesses in the EU, leading to diminished investment and interrupting – if not terminating – Europe’s advance toward a low-carbon economy. Once such a process begins, the politically fragile EU will be unable to stop it, at least in the foreseeable future.

The other, more promising scenario involves a fundamental shift in how the problem of climate change is understood, and thus in how potential solutions are framed. A new bottom-up approach, whose contours are only just emerging, is predicated on the basic principle that the less emissions, the better.

In order to ensure this outcome, the EU must begin preparing a Plan B that accounts for the coming climate-policy paradigm shift. Such a plan would prioritize measurable progress toward decarbonizing the world’s largest economies over the establishment of global climate treaties or long-term global targets.

While the new paradigm would safeguard the legitimacy of existing regulatory and diplomatic instruments, such as emissions trading, the EU would have to reconsider the framework for applying them. Plans for flexible, incentive-led cooperation between developed and developing countries (so-called “clubs”) would become increasingly important, with progress depending on the cooperation of major emitters like the United States, China, and India.

In the future, the EU will have to approach climate change primarily as a matter of politics, rather than in terms of scientifically defined objectives. Only by adjusting to the international system’s practical constraints can the EU stay the course of economic transformation, remain relevant internationally, and help to contain global warming.

Incorrect please try again

Enter the numbers/words aboveEnter the numbers you hearCaptcha is invalid, generate another one and use it

First all states should invest into collective basic research into lowering emission intensity of GDP units. Lets see what new technology can achieve and then use diplomacy to commit to goals that the technology makes possible.

The current strategy puts the cart before the not-yet-existing horse. Read more

I think the main problem is we still look at issues in isolation.As if there was a problem with the climate, then another one with the financial institutions, with economy, then again some other problems with human society, education, science, culture and so on.Despite everybody talking about the world being a global, integral system we still think and act as if we were all fully independent, disconnected elements, free to act in isolation.Human society is part of the system of nature.Nature is global and integral and we know to the smallest details through multiple scientific studies how each element influences all the other elements, how the disappearance of one species disrupts the homoeostasis of the whole ecosystem, how sensitively the whole system is harmonized against external stimuli causing imbalance.And even the whole natural system is too big for us to attain, grasp this interconnectedness, we can look at our own biological body for an example how this general balance, mutual cooperation works.And today humanity has also become global and integral, we have interconnected through multiple levels and these interconnections are here to stay.There is nothing mystical about this, we exist in a vast system that is operated by natural laws.As long as we deny these laws, or go against them, our lives are going to get worse and worse up to the point of intolerable suffering.Do we want to wait for our inevitable change until suffering is forcing us, or we "awaken the dawn" and start adapting to the system in a pro-active manner? Read more

This is a way of saying that Europe cannot expect to influence climate change as others will continue to pollute. In fact, climate change will not be stopped. It may be slowed or rather the rate of increase may be lowered. We must adjust to the facts. We must minimise the damage. The question is what strategy should be used. Read more

I'm trying to understand what this means. We clearly do have one world, and this problem is a global shared top-defined common problem. So we could either all cooperate and each take our share. Or just have some of us do something, while others continue to pollute. But then we should acknowledge that polite diplomacy must be replaced by some more robust tit-for-tat, harder pushing and shoving. Trade tariffs on carbon, and carbon embedded in products. The EU push on carbon trade for airlines is a start. And it seems that EU industry lobbies will prevent the ETS from working if they will not be protected against 'carbon leakage'. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.